I blame Stern and his prior existing relationship with Bennett as one of the primary causes (ineptitude of the Seattle, King County and Washington State governments being the other) as why Kevin Durant is playing in OKC today. Bennett didn't "absorb" a single dollar loss that he didn't buy or create. Why is Sacramento not moving from Arco, which is less recently renovated, also had a vote shot down by the public (something that never got to happen in Seattle), and no money for renovation? Because Stern isn't pals with the Maloofs. You can debate whether it was good for the league or bad, right or wrong, but to insinuate that Stern isn't to blame for the Seattle/OKC situation is sticking your head in the sand. I wouldn't have thought you'd be on that side of the discussion, Ed...frankly I'm surprised.
Like when he gave Boston the #1 pic that allowed them to pick Oden, right? Boston doesn't need any help to beat the Blazers, they are an elite team.
Well, if RAY ALLEN says it, it must be true! Of course, the Bucks somehow made the playoffs repeatedly. Crazy how that works, huh? Mmm hmm. So what? If Stern only cares about market size, then clearly he was trying to keep them out. Further, the Spurs won titles before Manu and Parker were even on the team. How does that jibe with your position? Bullshit. The people of Seattle and Washington had plenty of times and opportunities to build a new arena. They simply lacked the civil will. There's nothing "corrupt" about Bennett wanting to take HIS team to HIS hometown, given the city of Seattle would not give him what he wants. Of course I followed the trial. I'm a lawyer, a huge sports fan, and I live four blocks from Key Arena. How could I not follow it? The emails are open to misinterpretation. I never saw an email where he explicitly said that he was going to move the team before the stadium issues were resolved. He said that he was working to avoid a lame duck-like situation, which means that he was working on moving the team OR that he was working on getting a stadium deal done. In any event, the stadium issues were not going to be "resolved" until a new arena was built. Or until the lease ran out. If the team were still in Seattle, there would still be an ongoing effort by some die-hard Sonics fans to get a new facility built. Asking Bennett to wait until every last opportunity to expire before he changed the situation is silly. Ed O.
It wasn't impossible for the team to stay. The city could have nutted up and paid for a new arena. We didn't though, and it cost the city the Sonics. Again: that's not Stern's fault. Ed O.
Why is it acceptable for an owner to accept future losses based on existing contracts but NOT for the owner to exercise his rights to move the team to avoid losing money? I'm not up to speed on the Maloofs situation, but I seriously doubt that if they had a viable (non-Vegas) alternative that they REALLY wanted to move to that Stern would stand in their way. I disagree. I'm repeating myself, but this city did not value the Sonics enough to keep them. It is not up to Stern to convince Seattle or Bennett or anyone else to continue a relationship that was doomed. Stern works for the owners. One of the owners is Bennett. If Bennett could get a better deal in OKC and have psychic income by bringing his home town a major sports franchise... I don't think that Stern would be doing his job by hindering the move. Ed O.
As an attorney, I would hope that you understand that having Seattle pay for a brand new arena wasn't "reasonable" by any definition of the word after giving the Ackerleys $92MM just a few years ago. I don't hold Mayor Nickels or the Legislature blameless in this fiasco, but anyone can see that once Schultz sold the team, the NBA was not going to allow the Supes to stay in Seattle.
Lots of things wrong with your statement. 1. The Bucks making the playoffs doesn't mean anything. Over half the teams in the NBA make the playoffs each year....obviously there are going to be some teams from smaller markets, right? I'm not saying that I agree with Ray's logic, but just because some teams make the playoffs each year (or did) doesn't mean that they are all going to be from major cities. 2. You obviously aren't familiar with what he said. His point was more about advancing in the playoffs. He argued that certain teams were helped to advance to help the NBA's ratings, not an unreasonable claim. 3. Ray's name has nothing to do with it, but way to try and twist my argument . But I think he has more knowledge about the topic than any of us. I just used his name as an example. Van Gundy, and many other players and coaches have said similar things. Are you kidding me? How would keeping foreign players OUT increase market size. Look at what Yao Ming's arrival did for the league. Do you really think that he was beating out Shaq for the starting ASG spot every year because the NBA's market was limited to Americans? No, its because he had a lot of foreigners voting for him. Houston Rockets' games are now televised in China. So I missed the part where foreign players coming to the NBA hurts the market. Please explain that to me. Funny, isn't that the same argument that his lawyers used?
Yep. Nothing is "impossible". However, the remedy wasn't "reasonable". And in this case, "reasonable" supercedes "impossible".
That the city gave Ackerley $92m is irrelevant. Presumably that went into renovations of the Key Arena, which is (as I understand it) still owned by the city. I don't know when that payment/credit/whatever was made, but given that Schultz bought the team at the beginning of 2001, any payments made to the previous ownership were made the better part of a decade before the team was moved. It's pure hindsight Calvinist thinking to believe that Washington, King County, and Seattle could not have kept the Sonics if they had been willing to pay up for a new arena. Bennett would have GLADLY flipped the team to a new owner and used his profits to bring another team to OKC at the earliest opportunity. Ed O.
Again, no one is saying that Seattle couldn't have kept the team if they would have tried hard enough. The questions are whether or not Bennett negotiated in good faith and whether or not the remedy to keep them in Seattle was reasonable. You don't have to have a JD to understand that in both cases the answer is "no".
I'm talking about teams making the playoffs (or not) because of Stern's alleged belief that only large markets are good for the NBA. If you brought up a quote that's not relevant that's not my problem. You're ignoring the fact that San Antonio won championships with NO foreigners. Please tell me how that fits into the "Stern wants small market teams to fail" world view. Straw man. Absolutely. Remind me again who prevailed in court. Ed O.
My JD is irrelevant. I only brought it up because he asked if I was following the trial and my legal training is one of the reasons that I paid close attention. There is no responsibility for an owner to act "reasonably". Is it reasonable that players get paid what they do? Is it reasonable that a beer is so expensive at a game? Bennett jumped through the hoops that he had to, and he gave plenty of opportunities for Sonics fans and their politicians to keep the team in Washington. It was just too high of a price to pay, unfortunately for Sonics fans. Ed O.
For the record, the people never got to vote for the stadium. Blame the politicians in a HUGE WAY FOR THAT.
Terrific. There's a difference between what is legal and what is right. No, but he made a promise he didn't keep. He didn't make a good faith effort. In fact, it's pretty clear he acted in bad faith. That's lying, plain and simple. Yes. They're the best at what they do. In fact, in comparison to many other industries, being among the top 450 in the world, the pay scale of the NBA is considered low. Ed, I get it. Legally he's in the clear. Terrific. So is OJ in the murder of his ex-wife. It doesn't make him or Stern any less culpable. They sent a message. Don't fuck with the NBA. All they had to do was step on 41 years of history to do it. Fuck David Stern.
IIRC, no one won the case, b/c it was settled before the judge ruled. I'm no lawyer, but wasn't it settled to get a) more money out of Bennett into the city's coffers, and b) to get Schultz to drop his lawsuit? Some may say that paying 45M to the Seattle City Council to "settle" the case could be seen as a large bribe taken by the City Council to prevent justice from being done...I digress, though. Stern brokered the deal between Schultz and Bennett, due in no small part to Stern's prior existing relationship to Bennett. Stern went to the State Government on behalf of Bennett (to be fair, it was "Sonics Ownership", not Bennett). McClendon's emails seem beyond a reasonable doubt to show that the sale was negotiated in bad faith, which Stern may or may not have had an influence in (being a lawyer himself). So was Stern totally at fault? No. But he 1) knew what was going on, 2) brokered the deal, 3) argued on behalf of Bennett to the State, effectively drawing the line in the stand. You said "To blame the people who point the finger at Stern for this community's decision-making". I'm saying the only options were created by Stern. These options were mis-managed by the government (not the community--never once did you as a resident of Seattle, King County or Washington get to vote on this. Either did I). The government AND Stern are at fault.
This is not true. There was a time not to long ago where Paul Allen had the team up for sale. There was no way of knowing if the team would stay in Portland. The fans stayed away in droves. It has gotten better the last three years, but things were pretty up in the air. I can tell you right now there is no way in hell the citizens of Portland would fund another Arena.
I guess my main problem with the whole thing is that it's clear there is a certain level of corruption in the NBA. This isn't just speculation or conspiracy theory on my part, a damn ref was caught not that long ago for fixing/betting on games. I don't have any reason to believe that Stern is corrupt on that same level, but to say that the fans are wrong and he is completely innocent is naive. Pete Rose, Mark McGuire, and countless others have proven that just because someone is constantly in the spotlight doesn't mean that don't have skeletons in their closet. I don't know what Stern's personal motives are, or if he even has any. But I do know that he sent a bad message and was very disloyal to a group of fans that have been loyal for a long time. For the record, Stern has set up some over the top regulations for NBA stadiums, which is a big part of why the Key arena was deemed below the requirements. Anyone who has been to the Key knows that it is perfectly fine. I want Friday Nights at the Key back. Fuck David Stern.
